A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[bigrebnc1775]

In post #741 you said "And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history."

To which I replied "Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher."

You have limited comprehensions skills don't you? When did I say you or the researcher said the bible was advocating anything? Which there is you twisting something I did not say into something else

And I never said you did.

Can we get back to the topic or shall we continue in this ridiculous "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" bit?

My statement that neither I nor the researcher ever said the bible advocated anything is true. That you misconstrue it as an accusation aimed at you is not my problem.

Can we get back to the topic or shall we continue in this ridiculous "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" bit?

As long as you lie or twist something I said into something I did not say. NO we cannot.

 

[WinterBorn]

A lie is not evidence. It's just a lie, it's rewriting history to fit the gay agenda.

So you claim.

So I'm factual

Claiming that you are factual in this instance is a lie. You have no facts to back your claim. So you lied when you say it is factual.



Now you can contemplate your own lie while you hide from the debate.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have limited comprehensions skills don't you? When did I say you or the researcher said the bible was advocating anything? Which there is you twisting something I did not say into something else

And I never said you did.

Can we get back to the topic or shall we continue in this ridiculous "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" bit?

My statement that neither I nor the researcher ever said the bible advocated anything is true. That you misconstrue it as an accusation aimed at you is not my problem.

Can we get back to the topic or shall we continue in this ridiculous "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" bit?

As long as you lie or twist something I said into something I did not say. NO we cannot.

I have not twisted a damn thing you have said. I have responded to your ridiculous claims and kept explaining things over and over because you refuse to accept what was said.

If you don't want to discuss the issue, that is fine. But don't try and play this as some noble refusal to discuss it because of some bogus claim that I twist your words or lie.

When you have a rational argument, come back and we can play this game again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you claim.

So I'm factual

Claiming that you are factual in this instance is a lie. You have no facts to back your claim. So you lied when you say it is factual.



Now you can contemplate your own lie while you hide from the debate.

Using your revisionist version of church history nothing I say will be factual to you. There is no arguing against rewritten history to fit a modern day gay agenda. But when you use the real facts I am very factual.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And I never said you did.

Can we get back to the topic or shall we continue in this ridiculous "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" bit?

My statement that neither I nor the researcher ever said the bible advocated anything is true. That you misconstrue it as an accusation aimed at you is not my problem.

Can we get back to the topic or shall we continue in this ridiculous "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" bit?

As long as you lie or twist something I said into something I did not say. NO we cannot.

I have not twisted a damn thing you have said. I have responded to your ridiculous claims and kept explaining things over and over because you refuse to accept what was said.

If you don't want to discuss the issue, that is fine. But don't try and play this as some noble refusal to discuss it because of some bogus claim that I twist your words or lie.

When you have a rational argument, come back and we can play this game again.

STOP THE LYING. True story.

 

[WinterBorn]

So I'm factual

Claiming that you are factual in this instance is a lie. You have no facts to back your claim. So you lied when you say it is factual.



Now you can contemplate your own lie while you hide from the debate.

Using your revisionist version of church history nothing I say will be factual to you. There is no arguing against rewritten history to fit a modern day gay agenda. But when you use the real facts I am very factual.

I quoted research. You called it bogus, but not for any flaws in the research or facts, but because of what the bible says about homosexuality. Then you claim you are factual. lol

And you say I twist things? No, you lied.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Claiming that you are factual in this instance is a lie. You have no facts to back your claim. So you lied when you say it is factual.



Now you can contemplate your own lie while you hide from the debate.

Using your revisionist version of church history nothing I say will be factual to you. There is no arguing against rewritten history to fit a modern day gay agenda. But when you use the real facts I am very factual.

I quoted research. You called it bogus, but not for any flaws in the research or facts, but because of what the bible says about homosexuality. Then you claim you are factual. lol

And you say I twist things? No, you lied.

What you did was quote a historians research not a Biblical scholar's research. It is bogus when there is no evidence in the bible (the official history ) of the church that supports gay marriage.

And you say I twist things?

Yes you did when you wrote this

Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.

When I did not write that you said that nor did I suggest you said that would be your attempt to twist something I said into something I did not say nor implied.
I can keep this up if you can.

 

[WinterBorn]

Using your revisionist version of church history nothing I say will be factual to you. There is no arguing against rewritten history to fit a modern day gay agenda. But when you use the real facts I am very factual.

I quoted research. You called it bogus, but not for any flaws in the research or facts, but because of what the bible says about homosexuality. Then you claim you are factual. lol

And you say I twist things? No, you lied.

What you did was quote a historians research not a Biblical scholar's research. It is bogus when there is no evidence in the bible (the official history ) of the church that supports gay marriage.

And you say I twist things?

Yes you did when you wrote this

Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.

When I did not write that you said that nor did I suggest you said that would be your attempt to twist something I said into something I did not say nor implied.
I can keep this up if you can.

I quoted a historian's research into historical events. A bible scholar would have no basis for researching events that took place in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries. The bible scholar could address whether there was a biblical basis for what the church did. But the historian is better equipped to reasearch what the church did.

You see it as twisting. I see it as responding to continued nonsense about whether the bible advocates homosexuality or whether a bible scholar would be better at researching historical events.

If this is the worst that you face on these forums, you must either avoid difficult topics or ignore other posters.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I quoted research. You called it bogus, but not for any flaws in the research or facts, but because of what the bible says about homosexuality. Then you claim you are factual. lol

And you say I twist things? No, you lied.

What you did was quote a historians research not a Biblical scholar's research. It is bogus when there is no evidence in the bible (the official history ) of the church that supports gay marriage.



Yes you did when you wrote this

Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.

When I did not write that you said that nor did I suggest you said that would be your attempt to twist something I said into something I did not say nor implied.
I can keep this up if you can.

I quoted a historian's research into historical events. A bible scholar would have no basis for researching events that took place in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries. The bible scholar could address whether there was a biblical basis for what the church did. But the historian is better equipped to reasearch what the church did.

You see it as twisting. I see it as responding to continued nonsense about whether the bible advocates homosexuality or whether a bible scholar would be better at researching historical events.

If this is the worst that you face on these forums, you must either avoid difficult topics or ignore other posters.

I quoted a historian's research into historical events. A bible scholar would have no basis for researching events that took place in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries.

You quoted a revisionist so called research work who has an agenda to rewrite church history to fit a modern day gay motivated agenda.

The bible scholar could address whether there was a biblical basis for what the church did. But the historian is better equipped to reasearch what the church did.

No where in the BIBLE (the history book of the Church) does it ordain homosexual marriage. Also in the history book of the Church it mentions about false doctrines within the church.

You see it as twisting. I see it as responding to continued nonsense about whether the bible advocates homosexuality or whether a bible scholar would be better at researching historical events.

If you suggest that I said something when I did not you are in fact twisting what I said. So stop it don't do it.

 

[WinterBorn]

What you did was quote a historians research not a Biblical scholar's research. It is bogus when there is no evidence in the bible (the official history ) of the church that supports gay marriage.



Yes you did when you wrote this

When I did not write that you said that nor did I suggest you said that would be your attempt to twist something I said into something I did not say nor implied.
I can keep this up if you can.

I quoted a historian's research into historical events. A bible scholar would have no basis for researching events that took place in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries. The bible scholar could address whether there was a biblical basis for what the church did. But the historian is better equipped to reasearch what the church did.

You see it as twisting. I see it as responding to continued nonsense about whether the bible advocates homosexuality or whether a bible scholar would be better at researching historical events.

If this is the worst that you face on these forums, you must either avoid difficult topics or ignore other posters.

You quoted a revisionist so called research work who has an agenda to rewrite church history to fit a modern day gay motivated agenda.

The bible scholar could address whether there was a biblical basis for what the church did. But the historian is better equipped to reasearch what the church did.

No where in the BIBLE (the history book of the Church) does it ordain homosexual marriage. Also in the history book of the Church it mentions about false doctrines within the church.

You see it as twisting. I see it as responding to continued nonsense about whether the bible advocates homosexuality or whether a bible scholar would be better at researching historical events.

If you suggest that I said something when I did not you are in fact twisting what I said. So stop it don't do it.

The historian published his research. He documented events that happened, and I have not seen anyone refute his claims that these events happened.

If you want to use the bible as a history book, you have the disadvantage of the most recent portions of the bible being written between 70 and 150 AD. The events the researcher wrote about happened between 900 and 1200 years later.

Yes, there are mentions of false doctrines. Which is why I have continued to say that nothing in the research speaks to the biblical nature of the rituals and rites documented in the research.

I have never said that the events discussed in the research were proper Christian rites.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I quoted a historian's research into historical events. A bible scholar would have no basis for researching events that took place in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries. The bible scholar could address whether there was a biblical basis for what the church did. But the historian is better equipped to reasearch what the church did.

You see it as twisting. I see it as responding to continued nonsense about whether the bible advocates homosexuality or whether a bible scholar would be better at researching historical events.

If this is the worst that you face on these forums, you must either avoid difficult topics or ignore other posters.

You quoted a revisionist so called research work who has an agenda to rewrite church history to fit a modern day gay motivated agenda.



No where in the BIBLE (the history book of the Church) does it ordain homosexual marriage. Also in the history book of the Church it mentions about false doctrines within the church.

You see it as twisting. I see it as responding to continued nonsense about whether the bible advocates homosexuality or whether a bible scholar would be better at researching historical events.

If you suggest that I said something when I did not you are in fact twisting what I said. So stop it don't do it.

The historian published his research. He documented events that happened, and I have not seen anyone refute his claims that these events happened.

If you want to use the bible as a history book, you have the disadvantage of the most recent portions of the bible being written between 70 and 150 AD. The events the researcher wrote about happened between 900 and 1200 years later.

Yes, there are mentions of false doctrines. Which is why I have continued to say that nothing in the research speaks to the biblical nature of the rituals and rites documented in the research.

I have never said that the events discussed in the research were proper Christian rites.

The historian published his research. He documented events that happened, and I have not seen anyone refute his claims that these events happened.

I have The history book of Christianity (the Bible) does not ordain homosexual marriage it condemns the homosexual lifestyle. If someone is saying other wise they are a revisionist with a modern day supported agenda. Wouldn't it be funny to find out the researcher was gay?

Yes, there are mentions of false doctrines. Which is why I have continued to say that nothing in the research speaks to the biblical nature of the rituals and rites documented in the research.

If God ordained gay marriage why would he have created male and female?

 

[WinterBorn]

You quoted a revisionist so called research work who has an agenda to rewrite church history to fit a modern day gay motivated agenda.



No where in the BIBLE (the history book of the Church) does it ordain homosexual marriage. Also in the history book of the Church it mentions about false doctrines within the church.


If you suggest that I said something when I did not you are in fact twisting what I said. So stop it don't do it.

The historian published his research. He documented events that happened, and I have not seen anyone refute his claims that these events happened.

If you want to use the bible as a history book, you have the disadvantage of the most recent portions of the bible being written between 70 and 150 AD. The events the researcher wrote about happened between 900 and 1200 years later.

Yes, there are mentions of false doctrines. Which is why I have continued to say that nothing in the research speaks to the biblical nature of the rituals and rites documented in the research.

I have never said that the events discussed in the research were proper Christian rites.

The historian published his research. He documented events that happened, and I have not seen anyone refute his claims that these events happened.

I have The history book of Christianity (the Bible) does not ordain homosexual marriage it condemns the homosexual lifestyle. If someone is saying other wise they are a revisionist with a modern day supported agenda. Wouldn't it be funny to find out the researcher was gay?

Yes, there are mentions of false doctrines. Which is why I have continued to say that nothing in the research speaks to the biblical nature of the rituals and rites documented in the research.

If God ordained gay marriage why would he have created male and female?

No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage. But the researcher documented events in whichthe catholic church did. The organization is different than the faith. And the catholic church has, as I have said several times, done things that cannot be called "christian".

Whether the researcher is gay or straight does not change the facts of the events he documented.

In order to claim he was revising history, you need to find someone else who did research on the events in question and came to different conclusions. Or otherwise debunk the researcher's claims. Simply pointing out that the bible does not allow gay marriage does not do that.

Also, I guess I should remind you that the most recent parts of the bible were written 900+ years BEFORE the events in the research took place. So using the bible as a history text means your "history" stops around 150 AD.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The historian published his research. He documented events that happened, and I have not seen anyone refute his claims that these events happened.

If you want to use the bible as a history book, you have the disadvantage of the most recent portions of the bible being written between 70 and 150 AD. The events the researcher wrote about happened between 900 and 1200 years later.

Yes, there are mentions of false doctrines. Which is why I have continued to say that nothing in the research speaks to the biblical nature of the rituals and rites documented in the research.

I have never said that the events discussed in the research were proper Christian rites.

I have The history book of Christianity (the Bible) does not ordain homosexual marriage it condemns the homosexual lifestyle. If someone is saying other wise they are a revisionist with a modern day supported agenda. Wouldn't it be funny to find out the researcher was gay?

Yes, there are mentions of false doctrines. Which is why I have continued to say that nothing in the research speaks to the biblical nature of the rituals and rites documented in the research.

If God ordained gay marriage why would he have created male and female?

No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage. But the researcher documented events in whichthe catholic church did. The organization is different than the faith. And the catholic church has, as I have said several times, done things that cannot be called "christian".

Whether the researcher is gay or straight does not change the facts of the events he documented.

In order to claim he was revising history, you need to find someone else who did research on the events in question and came to different conclusions. Or otherwise debunk the researcher's claims. Simply pointing out that the bible does not allow gay marriage does not do that.

No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage.

Here we go again what was your argument with using the Historians research about the church and gay marriage? What exactly was that all about?

 

[WinterBorn]

I have The history book of Christianity (the Bible) does not ordain homosexual marriage it condemns the homosexual lifestyle. If someone is saying other wise they are a revisionist with a modern day supported agenda. Wouldn't it be funny to find out the researcher was gay?



If God ordained gay marriage why would he have created male and female?

No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage. But the researcher documented events in whichthe catholic church did. The organization is different than the faith. And the catholic church has, as I have said several times, done things that cannot be called "christian".

Whether the researcher is gay or straight does not change the facts of the events he documented.

In order to claim he was revising history, you need to find someone else who did research on the events in question and came to different conclusions. Or otherwise debunk the researcher's claims. Simply pointing out that the bible does not allow gay marriage does not do that.

No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage.

Here we go again what was your argument with using the Historians research about the church and gay marriage? What exactly was that all about?

I have to repeat myself a lot when talking with you, have you noticed?

The reason I posted the article is to refute the "Marriage has always been about 1 man & 1 woman" or the "The definition of marriage has been the same for 2000 years".

I never intended for the article to be about whether or not Christianity allows gay marriage. I know it does not. But the fact that Christianity doesn't allow it doesn't matter when discussing US Federal Law.

 

[Artevelde]

No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage. But the researcher documented events in whichthe catholic church did. The organization is different than the faith. And the catholic church has, as I have said several times, done things that cannot be called "christian".

Whether the researcher is gay or straight does not change the facts of the events he documented.

In order to claim he was revising history, you need to find someone else who did research on the events in question and came to different conclusions. Or otherwise debunk the researcher's claims. Simply pointing out that the bible does not allow gay marriage does not do that.

No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage.

Here we go again what was your argument with using the Historians research about the church and gay marriage? What exactly was that all about?

I have to repeat myself a lot when talking with you, have you noticed?

The reason I posted the article is to refute the "Marriage has always been about 1 man & 1 woman" or the "The definition of marriage has been the same for 2000 years".

I never intended for the article to be about whether or not Christianity allows gay marriage. I know it does not. But the fact that Christianity doesn't allow it doesn't matter when discussing US Federal Law.

So you know the article you posted was rubbish. Why post it then?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage. But the researcher documented events in whichthe catholic church did. The organization is different than the faith. And the catholic church has, as I have said several times, done things that cannot be called "christian".

Whether the researcher is gay or straight does not change the facts of the events he documented.

In order to claim he was revising history, you need to find someone else who did research on the events in question and came to different conclusions. Or otherwise debunk the researcher's claims. Simply pointing out that the bible does not allow gay marriage does not do that.

No one said Christianity or the Bible ordained gay marriage.

Here we go again what was your argument with using the Historians research about the church and gay marriage? What exactly was that all about?

I have to repeat myself a lot when talking with you, have you noticed?

The reason I posted the article is to refute the "Marriage has always been about 1 man & 1 woman" or the "The definition of marriage has been the same for 2000 years".

I never intended for the article to be about whether or not Christianity allows gay marriage. I know it does not. But the fact that Christianity doesn't allow it doesn't matter when discussing US Federal Law.

Gay marriage has never been ordained by the church

 

[WinterBorn]

Here we go again what was your argument with using the Historians research about the church and gay marriage? What exactly was that all about?

I have to repeat myself a lot when talking with you, have you noticed?

The reason I posted the article is to refute the "Marriage has always been about 1 man & 1 woman" or the "The definition of marriage has been the same for 2000 years".

I never intended for the article to be about whether or not Christianity allows gay marriage. I know it does not. But the fact that Christianity doesn't allow it doesn't matter when discussing US Federal Law.

So you know the article you posted was rubbish. Why post it then?

If I were bigrebnc I would throw a hissy fit here.

I didn't say the article was rubbish. In fact, I have seen nothing to suggest that it is rubbish.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here we go again what was your argument with using the Historians research about the church and gay marriage? What exactly was that all about?

I have to repeat myself a lot when talking with you, have you noticed?

The reason I posted the article is to refute the "Marriage has always been about 1 man & 1 woman" or the "The definition of marriage has been the same for 2000 years".

I never intended for the article to be about whether or not Christianity allows gay marriage. I know it does not. But the fact that Christianity doesn't allow it doesn't matter when discussing US Federal Law.

Gay marriage has never been ordained by the church

According to...??? The link I posted shows research suggesting that the catholic church did, in fact, ordain marriage between two men. And that it used the same rituals and ceremony.

If you have some evidence to the contrary, I would be glad to see it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have to repeat myself a lot when talking with you, have you noticed?

The reason I posted the article is to refute the "Marriage has always been about 1 man & 1 woman" or the "The definition of marriage has been the same for 2000 years".

I never intended for the article to be about whether or not Christianity allows gay marriage. I know it does not. But the fact that Christianity doesn't allow it doesn't matter when discussing US Federal Law.

So you know the article you posted was rubbish. Why post it then?

If I were bigrebnc I would throw a hissy fit here.

I didn't say the article was rubbish. In fact, I have seen nothing to suggest that it is rubbish.

Dude I haven't thrown a hissy fit, I just haven't allowed you the chance to lie or twist what has been said. I stop the discussion to address it when it happens.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you know the article you posted was rubbish. Why post it then?

If I were bigrebnc I would throw a hissy fit here.

I didn't say the article was rubbish. In fact, I have seen nothing to suggest that it is rubbish.

Dude I haven't thrown a hissy fit, I just haven't allowed you the chance to lie or twist what has been said. I stop the discussion to address it when it happens.

So you saw the incredible twisting of my words too? lol